Thursday, October 20, 2016

I have several reactions to it. My feelings vary along the continuum between "excellent" to "needs improvement."

The theme park designers were meticulous about demonstrating that the ark was sufficiently large to house all the living creatures that needed saving (including dinosaurs) for the necessary length of time they were to be housed (about a year? Genesis 8). They are on their way to abundantly making the point; but they are not quite there yet.

On the outside, it was interesting to appreciate the Biblical size of the ark. My thoughts on the matter were, "Yes, this boat is big enough to carry of a LOT of animals. It is also believable that a small number of fellows could build it if they had a hundred years." (I don't know how long it took those four guys to build it; but they did have a lot of time). I noticed that this re-creation of the Biblical ark has a keel. "Ark" just means "box;" so we might imagine the ark should have had square ends. For structure, it probably had at least rounded ends. Very likely, the reason the book of Genesis calls this boat an "ark" is so that it can be liturgically linked to the "ark" of the covenant that had its place in the tabernacle (Exodus 26:34) and whose purpose was to save mankind, and to carry mankind through judgment to covenant.

I will not quibble about the shape of the ark's bow.

The inside of this ark features (correctly) three decks. Once I had made my way to the second deck, I was thinking, "This ark can certainly accommodate six decks in the same vertical space." But there may have been logistical issues with available air, and, quite frankly, three decks was sufficient to house all the animals and eight people.

The Ark Encounter featured only a few animal cages. Obviously, there was room for many-many more animals; but this place is a museum and there needs to be a way for a lot of museum visitors to go around and see everything. That means wide walkways that are wheelchair accessible. The real ark functioned more like a cargo ship. The Ark Encounter curators want to show that the Biblical ark account is logistically believable. It would be impractical to be overly realistic in a museum setting.

What few animals they featured in the Ark Encounter demonstrated that it was sufficient to get the necessary genetic information through the flood to afford the wide variety of animal life we see on this side of the flood. They also demonstrated that land dinosaurs could have been brought through the Genesis flood on the ark. My favorite exhibit was the Tyrannosaur Kind cage. The information plaque on the cage very briefly explained a few things about the Tyrannosaur kind and noted that many adult tyrannosaurs were nine feet long from tail-tip to snout. I have done my own research on tyrannosaurs and have learned that most tyrannosaurs were about that size. When standing as tall as they could stand, they were about six feet tall. The point is, it is completely reasonable to believe that those six-foot-tall tyrannosaurs carried sufficient genetic information to eventually result in the few quite large Tyrannosauruses Rex that have been discovered.

This museum is far from complete. The Ark Encounter people need to think of ways to portray how the inside of that Genesis ark probably looked without totally crowding out the museum visitors.

The animal exhibits feature animal sculptures of meticulous artwork. It is commendable that the Ark Encounter people went to so much trouble to put together such life-like animal sculptures. On the other hand, the animal sculptures are positioned in (yes, believable) cages that make viewing the animals unfulfilling. You cannot see the animals very well. The Ark Encounter people need to find some way to better display the artwork while still portraying how they might have been housed on the Genesis ark.

Along the walls are little theme based educational mini-museums where visitors can learn about related topics such as the origin of the ice age, the history of the world before the flood, different memories of the flood in other world cultures and how they compare with the Genesis account, etc. etc. etc. Those little side-museums were insufficiently spacious for me. I don't like going into small crowd-filled rooms. All of the information featured in the little mini-museums is available from books and videos published by Answers in Genesis.

Some of the themes are a little preachy and are presented from a Calvinist perspective. Adam and Eve ate the fruit > total depravity > Cain kills Abel > great wickedness of mankind > flood. It's all Adam's fault. I don't see why that perspective is necessary. Whatever.

The price to get in is pretty stunning. The park is still in development. They probably need the money.

They are putting together a theme zoo that promises to be quite interesting when it is ready.

Oh, and the air conditioning is not strong enough to keep that big ark building cool. If they had piped in a bunch of humid manure smell I would have thought it was a planned part of the experience.

Friday, October 7, 2016

When presented with Bible passages that demonstrate that baptism is the action (ceremony/rite/ritual/sacrament) God has prescribed as the point at which a believer is saved (e.g., Acts 2:38; 22:16, see this article), many Christians dispute the conclusion by citing the example of the Thief on the Cross. In the Thief example, a man was saved without being baptized.

The account of the Thief on the Cross is documented in Luke 23. Luke informs us that Jesus was crucified with two criminals. One of the criminals derided Jesus for being a crucified Messiah. The other criminal, the Thief on the Cross, rebuked the first criminal for criticizing Jesus, a condemned yet innocent man. Here is how the conversation went.

Luke 23:41-43 (NRSV):

41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

There is a lot of Gospel in this account and it makes a lot of sense that Luke would have included this conversation for just that reason. Firstly, Jesus was an innocent man hanging there on the cross. If he had been guilty of something, his death would have been unable to provide forgiveness of sins (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 10). Next, the Lord's death was necessary to provide the kind of forgiveness the Thief needed. If Jesus had called for his own rescue from the cross (Matthew 26:53), as was suggested by the first criminal (Luke 23:39), then the sacrificial death by which salvation came would have not happened. Next, the Thief professed faith in Jesus and requested salvation. At that point, the Lord granted salvation to the Thief.

To dismiss this account as occurring at the end of the period of the Old Covenant and before the beginning of the New Covenant misses Luke's point. If the Thief had not been so indisposed, being nailed to a cross himself, and he had requested baptism, the baptism he would have received would have been John's baptism (for the forgiveness of sins, Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) - not Christian baptism. In New Testament times, Christian baptism was connected symbolically with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6). Christian baptism would have made no sense until after the Lord rose from the dead. Nevertheless, the reason the Thief on the Cross was not baptized is because he couldn't be baptized. He was indisposed.

The church, for the first 15 centuries, believed (from the Bible) that baptism was essential for salvation. From very early on, the church recognized a couple exceptions. The first and obvious exception was when a person came to faith but was martyred for her faith before she could be baptized. The church called it the baptism of blood. See the quote at the end of this article for a brief explanation of the martyr's baptism.

The second exception is called "baptism of desire." In that case, the person believes in Jesus but is somehow prevented from receiving baptism.

“Baptism of desire” refers to any situation in which a believing person
honestly desires to meet the condition of baptism but is prevented from
doing so by unavoidable physical circumstances, e.g., confined to
prison, nailed to a cross, pinned down by enemy gunfire, lost in a
desert. In such cases it is reasonable to assume that God “takes the
will for the deed” and saves a person without baptism, as long as he or
she believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. (Jack Cottrell)

We should all agree, minimally, that it was impossible for the Thief on the Cross to receive baptism. He had met the other critical conditions of salvation (Faith, confession/repentance of sin). In the Thief's special case, the more important condition, faith, had been met. The Thief's failure to submit to baptism cannot be blamed on his lack of desire.

Many Christians argue that Acts 2:38 (for example) cannot mean "you have to be baptized" because it would contradict the experience of the Thief on the Cross. That argument misses the point of Luke's account which is to highlight the salvific importance of the Lord's death. To enlist the Thief's salvation experience this way commits the fallacy of false analogy (comparing two situations that are not alike in important aspects). It also commits the fallacy of hasty generalization (drawing a conclusion from too little, bad or misunderstood evidence). It is a fallacy to say, "The Thief on the Cross was not baptized; so nobody has to be baptized."

Most of us are not physically prevented from being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. We don't have the Thief's excuse.

Here is another really basic point. Jesus on earth had authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:24). If Jesus walks up to you in person and tells you your sins are forgiven, you can be certain that they are. If not, I recommend you be baptized.

Footnote:
Everett Ferguson, Church History, vol 1, 2nd edition, electronic resource:
Writing on the subject of second century persecution:

Their death brought forgiveness of sins to the martyrs. Theirs was a “baptism of blood.” As Jesus Christ had spoken of his sufferings as a bitter “cup” to be drunk, so he had spoken of them as a “baptism” (Mark 10:38), for he was overwhelmed in suffering. The martyr shared this baptism of suffering, and the same benefits attributed to baptism were ascribed to martyrdom. This was one exception the ancient church made in its normally strong teaching on the necessity of baptism (chapter 8). Often catechumens who had not yet received baptism were caught up in the accusations made against Christians; not all had the opportunity to be baptized, as did Perpetua. It certainly made no sense for these persons to deny Jesus Christ so as to gain time to be baptized, hence the church assured them that their death for Christ was equivalent to the baptismal confession of faith. In spite of some defections, the persecutions—instead of crushing the church—strengthened the resolve of devoted believers. Their steadfastness under pressure, even to martyrdom, called attention to Christian faith and attracted inquirers. Opponents on the outside, however, did not provide the only problems faced by the second-century church.

About

Leaders in the church generally do their teaching so that everybody can rest their faith upon a fluffy pile of pillows. Oh, we want to challenge people; but we don’t want to challenge them with near the force that the Bible does. If there are two answers to a question and one of them is difficult but the other one is simple, we promote the simple answer even if the difficult explanation is the Biblical explanation. I don’t think a Christian’s faith is served by dishonesty. When one’s assumptions are shaken up, we either give up or we work through it and rework our belief system. When people give up, it is unfortunate. When people work through difficulties, they become stronger for it. I also think it is best to hear about difficult topics from other believers who have themselves worked through them. I see the church populated by people with very weak faith. Some might call their faith “fragile;” and that may be a good characterization. I do not believe we should insulate these people from hard teachings. Some day, they need to put away the baby bottle and pick up a fork! It is not ideal to hear about such stuff from atheists who really don’t care about your faith. Most of my articles follow this value. I am a believer who has worked through some very difficult “ah ha!” learnings. I want to share what I have learned with a view towards strengthening your faith.